Honble MADAN, J. - In this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is member of the Schedule Tribe and who has got no house in village Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsoth, District Dausa, has sought the relief of writ of mandamus for allotment of land measuring 100 x 100 which has wrongly Been allotted to respondent No.4, the then Sarpanch and Rambilas respondent No.5 with the prayer to quash the allotment of land made in favour of respondent No.4 and has also challenged the decision of village panchayat dated 5.9.1977 and the sale- letter dated 11.6.1968 vide Ex. 1 and 2 respectively. The petitioner has further sought the relief of writ of prohibition on the ground that the petitioner who is in possession of 100 x 100 of land for a very long time, shall not be dispossessed from the said land. The petitioner has further sought the relief of any other appropriate writ, direction or order which may be issued by this court by setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.3.1984 passed by learned Additional Collector Dausa with a direction that the petitioner be held entitled to the allotment of the land in accordance with the provisions of Rule 66 of the Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961. (2). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a resident of village Mandawari Tehsil Lalsoth, District Dausa and is by caste Meena and as such belongs to Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan State. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner has got no residential house in the village and as such gram-panchayat Mandawari has been exploiting the petitioner with a view to deprive him of the possession of the land in question. The aforesaid piece of land of which the petitioner is claiming possession is situated in western side of land of Nemichand Jain and at some distance on the same track, Rambilas respondent No.5 is having his house and in the same vicinity one Munsi Lal Soni son of Narain Soni Ex Sarpanch of village Mandawari is also having his land. The aforesaid piece of land of which the petitioner is claiming possession is situated in western side of land of Nemichand Jain and at some distance on the same track, Rambilas respondent No.5 is having his house and in the same vicinity one Munsi Lal Soni son of Narain Soni Ex Sarpanch of village Mandawari is also having his land. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Munsi Lal Soni, respondent No.5, was holding his post as Sarpanch in the years 1974-77 and during the relevant period, the land measuring 173 x 35 x 41 total measuring 6574 sq. feet at the rate 4 NP per squire feet was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner had paid in all Rs. 2621.96 Tor the allotment of his said land to the gram-panchayat, Mandawari. It has been further stated by the petitioner that respondent No.4 has got three double storied houses and two shops in village Mandawari and that these houses and shops were also existing before allotment of disputed land to the petitioner. It has been further contended that since the petitioner is from Scheduled Tribe having no house in the village, had requested the gram-panchayat to allot a piece of land measuring 100 x 100 on the same basis as allotted to respondent No.4, the then Sarpanch and Rambilas respondent No.5 but his application was rejected. On number of occasions the petitioner had requested the gram-panchayat to supply him the copy of the rejection order but the same has not been given to him and as such he had no alternative except to file a revision petition before the Collector. The petitioner has further alleged discrimination by the authorities qua other applicants as referred to above since on the one hand it is said that the land is required to be given to the petitioner by observing formula of rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1961 to Munsi Lal Sarpanch as well as Rambilas, respondent No.5 who were allotted land in terms of allotment order, dated 6.5.1975 by gram- panchayat, Mandawari (total land given to him 1350 sq. feet @ 4 NP per squire feet) and on similar basis gram-panchayat had allotted land to Munsi Lal Soni, respondent No.4 vide order Ex.3, but the petitioner was left out for allotment of the land in question. feet @ 4 NP per squire feet) and on similar basis gram-panchayat had allotted land to Munsi Lal Soni, respondent No.4 vide order Ex.3, but the petitioner was left out for allotment of the land in question. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the gram panchayat had rejected the petitioners application on 30.7.1977. Subsequently the petitioner had sent a notice for demand of justice to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 19.4.1984 vide Ex. 6 but to no effect. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of gram-panchayat and Additional Collector, Dausa dated 24.3.84 which are illegal, unjustified, discriminatory and perverse on the ground that the impugned orders are contrary to the record of the case and that since the case of the petitioner for allotment of land cannot be distinguished with the case of Ex Sarpanch Munsi Lal, respondent No.4 and in view of the applicability of Rule 266 clause (c) which is applicable to the petitioner, the land could be allotted to the petitioner on the basis of private negotiations whereas the land ought not to have been allotted to respondent No.4 Munsi Lal under Rule 262 of the Rules of 1961 and that since the petitioner does not have residential house in his own name in village Mandawari, due consideration under Rule 266 was required to be given in the matter. (3). During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the respondents that from the perusal of Patta dated 6.5.75 it is clearly apparent that the land was given to Rambilas, respondent No. 5 (deleted as a party to writ petition vide order of this court dated 5.4.89). It has been contended that as Rambilas respondent No.5 has got six houses and seven shops in the village, he should not have been allotted any land and since he is not an agriculturist, but is running a kirana shop on account of perverse findings, the petitioner has been discriminated with respondent No.5 inasmuch as the land of respondent No.5 and that of the petitioner is situated in the same vicinity and if rule 266 is made applicable to respondent No.5, then the petitioner should not have been discriminated without any nexus for valid reason. It has been further alleged that due to political rivalry and since the petitioner has been discriminated qua above named individuals and as such fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated. No reasons have been assigned as to why the allotment of land was made in favour of Munsi Lal Ex Sarpanch who has got number of houses and shops in the village and that this is a case of highhandedness and abuse of power and position due to which the petitioner has been discriminated quo respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It has been further contended that special provision has been made under the Panchayat Rules for giving due consideration to the oppressed class and that the petitioner is falling within the category of Scheduled Tribe. (4). Shri Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the resolution, dated 6.9.77 passed by village panchayat Mandawari on the basis of which the petitioner had applied for allotment of land for setting up an industry. Panchayat comprising 7 members who were present in the meeting of the said date, unanimously took a decision that the dispute concerning allotment of land to the petitioner be referred to the gram sabha for its decision. On 20.9.1977 a joint meeting of gram sabha and gram-panchayat took place wherein the resolution dated 6,9.77 was confirmed on 27.9.77. The allotment of land as claimed by the petitioner was rejected and the resolution passed by gram sabha rejecting the allotment of land, was confirmed. Against this decision of gramsabha the petitioner preferred a revision before the Addl. Collector and Magistrate 1st Class, Dausa. After taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also the relevant rules concerning allotment of land, learned Additional Collector came to the conclusion that without resort to the provisions of law and the rules, petitioner forcibly and unlawfully wishes to grab the piece of land which is a valuable piece of land being very close to the main road and as such the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of the land and consequently there being no error apparent on the face of the decision of gram sabha and gram panchayat the revision petition is not maintainable and was consequently dismissed by the Addl. Collector vide his order dated 2.3.1984. Collector vide his order dated 2.3.1984. Being aggrieved by the order of Addl. Collector dated 6.7.78 the petitioner preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, and the Appellate Authority after hearing the petitioner rejected the appeal vide order, dated 11.11.86 which fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in this writ petition and which has been brought-forth to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, gram panchayat and this fact is also apparent from the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3. (5). On 26.7.|1989 this writ petition had come up for hearing before learned Single Judge of this court when the writ petition was admitted for hearing and notices were issued to the respective parties to the petition and the interim order dated 12.6.86 was confirmed with the direction that the same shall remain operative till the final hearing and disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently notices were served on all the respondents who have since filed their reply to the writ petition and it is under these circumstances that the matter has come up for final hearing and disposal before this court. (6). During the course of hearing on 6.9.94 a question had arisen for consideration of this court as to who is in actual possession of plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e., residential plots and shops bearing Nos. 1 to 5 in Khasra No. 588/1 in village Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsoth, District Dausa and a local Commissioner was appointed by this court to inspect the site on 6.9.94 itself and furnish the report to the court by 7.9.94. Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma an Advocate of this court who was appointed as Commissioner, inspected the site on 7.9.94 and submitted his report which has since been taken on record of this court. (7). Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length by this court and they have also filed their written submissions. (8). On behalf of respondent No.3 it has been specifically contended that the land measuring 5 bighas 3 biswas in Khasra No.588 of which the land in dispute forms a part, has been set apart of extension of abadi land by the Collector, Jaipur and mutation No. 96 dated 7.12.70 was opened by the Tehsildar Lalsoth. (8). On behalf of respondent No.3 it has been specifically contended that the land measuring 5 bighas 3 biswas in Khasra No.588 of which the land in dispute forms a part, has been set apart of extension of abadi land by the Collector, Jaipur and mutation No. 96 dated 7.12.70 was opened by the Tehsildar Lalsoth. It has been further contended that the land in dispute is within the close proximity of Bus-stand of village Mandawari and is a very valuable piece of land and that the petitioner had encroached upon the said land by taking unlawful possession over the same and hence in absence of legal right, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief by this court. It has been further contended by respondent No.3 that the petitioner was evicted by the authorities after following due process of law and that the petitioner being a trespasser has rightly been evicted in accordance with law on 4.10.77. It has been further contended that after setting apart the land in dispute for extension of Abadi the gram- panchayat had prepared the plan for residential purposes as well as for shops and had issued public notice for auction of the plots on 28.9.77 stating therein that the said plots will be auctioned on 17.10.77 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and that the petitioner had participated in the said auction. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner gave a highest bid of Rs. 6200/- for allotment of plot No.l but since he had not deposited 1/4 of the bid amount, auction in favour of the petitioner was cancelled after due notice to him and hence the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason of conduct of the petitioner. (9). It is only after the eviction of the petitioner that he had filed an application for allotment of land for setting up an industry before the Collector, Jaipur on 13.6.1978 which was rejected by the learned Collector after due verification on 6.7.78 on the ground that the possession of the petitioner over the land in question had not been proved and that the allotment cannot be made in favour of the petitioner and if inspite of this the petitioner wanted allotment of the land for setting up an industry he has to file a separate application which may be considered in accordance with law. (10). (10). It is significant to mention that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of rejection orders of Collector Jaipur, as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority, dated 6.7.78 and 11.11.86 respectively and the said orders having become final, the petitioner has no claim whatsoever over the land in dispute and since without challenging the aforesaid orders this writ petition is not maintainable before this court. This fact is clearly apparent from the perusal of the writ petition that the petitioner has not challenged both the orders, dated 6.7.78 and 11.11.86 which have since become final and conclusive and since without challenging the said orders and also the order, dated 11.11.86 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. It has been further contended on behalf of respondent No.3. that the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner disentitles him for claiming any relief from this court. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner had failed to mention the fact of purchase of land from Ramswaroop before the Collector and also before the Revenue Appellate Authority in the memo of appeal which has been submitted for the first time before this court vide Ex.1, i.e., the sale-deed dated 11.6.1968. Further the petitioner is estopped from challenging his title through the sale-deed as referred to above, the petitioner did not file any petition against the orders of the concerned Authorities and in absence of specific objections in this regard, the permission was validly granted in favour of respondent No.4. It is relevant to mention that respondent No.5 sought permission from gram-panchayat to construct a pacca house on his own land which was granted after inviting objections and on payment of premium @ 4 paise per sq. feet. Since the petitioner wanted to grab the land he trespassed over the same and thereafter submitted an application for allotment to establish an industry. (11). feet. Since the petitioner wanted to grab the land he trespassed over the same and thereafter submitted an application for allotment to establish an industry. (11). Land for industry purpose can be allotted under the provisions of Rajasthan Land (Revenue (Conversion of Agriculture Land into Non-Agriculture Land) Rules, 1966 and that the requirement of the Rules is to the effect that the petitioner ought to have khatedari rights over the land and if any application is made under Rule 3, the Collector is empowered to allot the land for industrial purpose in rural areas and that this power does not vest in gram panchayat to allot the land for setting up the industry. This fact is also clearly apparent that since the petitioner has not moved any application in compliance with the statutory requirement of Rule 3 to the Collector, the gram panchayat has no jurisdiction to pass and order in favour of the petitioner for allotment of land for industrial purposes. It is relevant to mention here that the case of the petitioner cannot be said to be similar to the case of Munsi Lal and Rambilas inasmuch as the) petitioner having participated in the auction proceedings, had failed to make any deposit of the amount of bid for allotment of shop No. 1 and hence the petitioner is estopped from making any allegation to the contrary by way of this writ petition since the said power vests only with the Collector, hence this is no violation on the ground of discrimination of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (12). In his re-joinder the aforesaid facts have been controverted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had made payment of due consideration to one Shri Ramswaroop son of Fatehchand Jain and that he had old possession of the land and had also constructed a house over the land. (13). In reply to the preliminary objections, the petitioner has contended that without auction the land had been allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that no auction had taken place on 17.10.77. (13). In reply to the preliminary objections, the petitioner has contended that without auction the land had been allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that no auction had taken place on 17.10.77. It has been further contended in the re-joinder that the petitioner had submitted an application to the State Government on account of village political rivalry between different groups who have been harassing the petitioner resulting in damage to his constructed patrod in respect of which he had filed an application to the appropriate authority dated 5.7.1977 vide Ex. 8. It has been mentioned by the petitioner in reply to para 9 of the re-joinder that the entire land was taken by panchayat for purposes of development and that the land was agricultural land in the khatedari of some person and that respondent No.4 Munsi Lal Soni is not an agriculturist and for the purpose of proving him on agriculturist fictitious sale has been shown in his favour measuring 6574 Sq. feet at the nominal price of 4 paise per sq. ft. In the additional affidavit filed by the Administrator of gram-panchayat Mandawari in reply to petitioners re-joinder, it has been contended that the resolution dated 29.10.74 of gram panchayat is not relevant to decide the present controversy since no land in khasra No.588/1 measuring 5 bighas 3 biswas was allotted to various persons as wrongly alleged by the petitioner but the same was given to allottees by open auction as stated in the reply of respondent No.3 and since the petitioner was having no old possession over the land in dispute. It has been specifically controverted by the Administrator of the gram panchayat that sale-deed Ex.1 submitted by the petitioner is false and fabricated. Administrator has filed a copy of auction proceeding vide Ex.R.4 from which it is amply proved that the petitioner had failed to deposit the balance amount as per the conditions stipulated therein, the auction in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and that the land was re-auctioned. It was only after the auction of the land in khasra No. 588/1 that the possession of the plots was handed over the various persons and since the petitioner had already been dispossessed prior to auction, the petitioner did not acquire the possession again and is still not in possession of the disputed land. (14). It was only after the auction of the land in khasra No. 588/1 that the possession of the plots was handed over the various persons and since the petitioner had already been dispossessed prior to auction, the petitioner did not acquire the possession again and is still not in possession of the disputed land. (14). In the written submissions made on behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the entire belt of village Mandawari is thickly populated by ST/SC and they have got no regular means of livelihood and that the petitioner is Meena by caste and belongs to Scheduled Tribe and having no means of livelihood the petitioner had requested the gram panchayat and the State Government that the land which is belonging to him be regularised in his name so that he can set up some small scale industry to earn his livelihood and that the gram panchayat Mandawari had passed an order dated 5.9.77 that the land be given to the petitioner and that the entire matter was examined by the panchas of the panchayat after due verification, confirming the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner measuring 100x 100. Rule 266 has made exception in favour of SC/ST and rule 267 has further made exception in clause (2) that the panchayat may also allot Abadi land free of cost to members of ST/SC. The petitioner had come into conflict with the Chairman of gram panchayat Shri Munsi Lal, respondent No.4, as he was grabbing the panchayat land on the basis of fraudulent claim by abuse of his official position as a Sarpanch who belongs to general class. It has been further contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that all of a sudden some resolution was passed by the gram panchayat depriving the petitioner of his lawful possession and at the relevant time the petitioner had got erected boundry- wall and some construction was done by the petitioner but without due process of law and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner, he was dispossessed from the land in question. Further on the basis of masonry construction, the Addl. Collector Dausa had passed an order against the petitioner regarding the land in dispute. (15). Further on the basis of masonry construction, the Addl. Collector Dausa had passed an order against the petitioner regarding the land in dispute. (15). In support of his contention the petitioner has placed reliance upon a D.B. Judgement of this court report in 1954 RLW 76) (1), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the only course open to the panchayat is to give notice to the party to show cause why the possession should not be removed and if the party appears and shows cause claiming the legal right, no order should be passed dispossessing the said party. This judgment of the Division Bench has further been clarified by the Apex Court in the matter of Maneka Gandhi reported in 1978 SC 597 (2), wherein the Apex Court held that there is no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall not be heard. The above cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, since a perusal of all the orders passed by gram panchayat as well as the Revenue Authorities fully reveals that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of being heard in compliance with the principles of natural justice and that the gram panchayat as well as the gram- sabha do not have any jurisdiction to make allotment of the land in which conversion of the land user from agricultural to non- agricultural is sought to be achieved. The requirement of the Rules of 1961 is that the party concerned ought to have khatedari rights over the land in dispute and if any application is made under Rule 3 of Rules 1966, it is only the Collector who is empowered to allot the land for industrial purposes in rural areas and that the gram-panchayat is not empowered under the Rules to allot the land for setting up an industry. The petitioner having not complied with the requirements of the Rules, is not entitled to agitate this issue for the first time before this court. The petitioner having not complied with the requirements of the Rules, is not entitled to agitate this issue for the first time before this court. I am further, of the opinion that provisions of Rules 265 and 266 of the aforesaid Rules do not help the petitioner in any manner, since under the said Rules only a person who has got clear title to the land may apply to the appropriate authority for such conversion and allotment and the petitioner having not done so and also having participated in the auction proceeding which were duly notified vide Ex.3 on 28.9.77, had failed to deposit the requisite amount of the bid, is estopped by his own conduct, act and acquiescence from pleading to the contrary on the principle of estoppel. (16). Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Poona vs. Tehsil Panchayat, Desuri (3), wherein it has been held by this Court that the dispute regarding immovable property are not within the jurisdiction of panchayats and have to be dealt with by the civil courts established by the State, where the presiding officers, trained in law adjudicate on the claims of the parties. It was further held that under section 49 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act it has been provided that the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court Fee Act, the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Panchayats save to the extent provided in this Act. The civil powers of gram panchayat are within narrow limits and stated under section 39 of the Act. (17). Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mala vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (4), wherein it was held by this Court that a right of revision is not a natural or inherent rights for the reason that a revision is a creation of statute and that a right of revision does not exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly granted by the statute or rules having the force of law and that a right of revision cannot be implied. In my opinion this citation also does not help the petitioner in any manner because notwithstanding the limitation as referred to above, the petitioner had availed the remedy of revision by moving the same before the Revenue Board and which has been rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority, since no error of law was found apparent on the face of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. The Revenue Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding to the effect that the petitioner is trespasser and land grabber having unlawfully encroached upon the land in question, is not entitled to relief, since the said finding has been rightly arrived at by the Addl. Collector, Dausa. (17). Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of this court in the matter of Hari Singh vs. State & Ors. (5), wherein this court held that the Panchas must have some material before them to show that the person asking for Patta of the land has some semblance of title over the land, although he may not be able to establish his title. It was further held by this court in the above case that there should be some positive material before the panchayat either in the form of document or atleast oral evidence to prove said possession over the land. It was further held in the above case that in order to attract the provisions of clause (a) of Rule 266 of the Rules of 1961 all pre-requisite conditions must be fulfilled, i.e., (i) the person asking for the sale must have a plausible claim, (ii) apart from that claim it should also appear that the auction may not fetch reasonable prince. When the rule talks of plausible claim it must be taken that the Panchayat must have some material before it to show that the person asking for Patta of the land has some semblance of title over that land, although he may not be able to create his title. When the rule talks of plausible claim it must be taken that the Panchayat must have some material before it to show that the person asking for Patta of the land has some semblance of title over that land, although he may not be able to create his title. This authority also does not help the petitioner in any manner inasmuch as the petitioner had failed to establish even semblance of title before the Revenue Authorities or before this court to establish that the petitioner had any title over the disputed land and it appears that for this reason the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings as referred to above, in which he had failed to deposit entire bid amount and on account of his failure the land was rightly allotted to respondent No.5. I am further of the opinion that the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), does not advance the case of the petitioner, since that was a case governing the principle of reasonableness in the matter of grant of passport under the Passport Act, 1967 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the proposition regarding the procedure for impounding Passports, and the grant of Passport, had taken the view that even in the Administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequence, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. Since the petitioner had been deprived opportunity of hearing by the appropriate Authority, the order impounding a Passport under section 10(3) (c) of the Passports Act was not held to be valid. This authority also does not help the petitioner in any manner, since from the perusal of the record and the reply filed by respondent No.3, it is clearly apparent that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. (18). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the matter of Kishore Singh and Anr. vs. Tehsii Panchayat, Banner (6) which was a case concerning allotment of Gochar Bhoomi. In the said case this court held that gram panchayat has got no powers to deprive others of their property simply by passing a resolution. vs. Tehsii Panchayat, Banner (6) which was a case concerning allotment of Gochar Bhoomi. In the said case this court held that gram panchayat has got no powers to deprive others of their property simply by passing a resolution. This authority also does not help the petitioner in any manner, since the land of the petitioner is in Abadi area wherein the petitioner had sought conversion of agriculture land to non-agriculture land for setting up an industry. (19). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this court in the matter of Anoop Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (7) wherein a question had arisen as to whether the State Government did not file the reply to writ petition despite several adjournments, some accountability should be fixed on negligent and defaulting officers. This authority also does not advance the case of the petitioner, since in this case notwithstanding any reply to the writ petition on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, learned counsel for the State has placed full reliance upon the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 (gram panchayat Mandawari) and in my opinion since the contention advanced on behalf of the State (respondent Nos. 1 & 2) have been fully covered by the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, no separate reply on behalf of the State would be necessary. (20). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance, in the matter of Smt. Anand Kanwar etc. etc. vs. State of Raj. (8), Misrimal vs. Gram Panchayat, Siwama (9), Giri Raj & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (10), Onkar Chand vs. State of Raj. (11), Chunnilal vs. Revenue Appellate Authority & Ors. (12) and Harijan Huts Association vs. Gopal Inani & Ors. (13). (21). Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon Mohiuddin Mohommad Din vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (14), wherein while dealing with a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution relief was sought by the petitioner against his unauthorised dispossession, it was held by the M.P. High Court that the petitioner must prove his title to the land from which he has been dispossessed and that Squatter or trespasser cannot apply under Art. 226 on the ground that the authority which evicted him was not the proper authority to do so. It was further held that the petitioner must file documents of title in time to enable other party to examine the same, and a trespasser is not entitled to any assistance. Reliance has also been placed on Bhanwari Lal vs. The State of Raj. (15). In this case this court while dealing with the question concerning transfer of agriculture land which was used for non-agricultural purpose without permission of the State Government, held that both the transferor and transferee are trespassers the transfer was void under section 42 (a) of the Tenancy Act. (22). In the [matter of Rajendra Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (16), this court held that since the petitioner had suppressed material facts from the notice of this court, the petition challenging the transfer order was held not maintainable and was consequently dismissed on the said ground. Since the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands and did not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (23). Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on Smt. Nanagidevi vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (17), wherein this court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of undue latches and also for the reason of mis-representation and concealment of material facts from this court. (24). In the matter of Lakha Singh and etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (18), the petitioner was held guilty and it was held by this court that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. (25). In the matter of Sumer Mal Singhvi vs. State of Raj. (19) on the question concerning conduct of the petitioner who was found guilty of making false submissions in the petition and concealing true facts it was held by this court that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief from this court. It was held by this court that the petitioner must suffer the consequence of adopting dubious means for obtaining relief from this court, the petition was dismissed. (26). In the matter of State Cadre Authority and Another vs. K.S. Bajpai & Ors. It was held by this court that the petitioner must suffer the consequence of adopting dubious means for obtaining relief from this court, the petition was dismissed. (26). In the matter of State Cadre Authority and Another vs. K.S. Bajpai & Ors. (20), it was held by the Apex Court that where the disputed question of fact have been raised, the same cannot be decided by way of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. (27). Likewise in the matter of Nanjunda & Ors. vs. Court of the Ist Additional District Judge & Ors. (21), it was held that where the disputed questions of fact have been raised for the first time in the writ petition, the same cannot be allowed to be raised by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. (28). In Himmat Jain vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (22), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that conversion of land for residential and commercial purposes could not be allowed since the same would not serve any public purpose and that since the land was covered under the scheme for acquisition and the acquisition was finalised and sanctioned, the acquisition being for public purpose, was neither arbitrary nor violative of any fundamental rights. It was held by this court that the mandamus would not be issued to perpetuate illegality or to revive. It was held by this court that there was no point in granting the prayer for conversion when the land was likely to be acquired for public purposes. In this case power was granted to the State Government by sub-Sec. 2(A) to extend the time for completion of the scheme and it was held that neither it was arbitrary nor violative of any fundamental rights. (29). During the course of hearing of this writ petition this court had summoned the complete records pertaining to the allotment of the land in question in favour of respondent No. 5. From the perusal of the abstract from the register maintained by gram-panchayat, it is clearly apparent that the petitioner had unlawfully encroached upon the land in question which fact is proved from the resolutions dated 27.9.77 and 1.10.77. From the perusal of the abstract from the register maintained by gram-panchayat, it is clearly apparent that the petitioner had unlawfully encroached upon the land in question which fact is proved from the resolutions dated 27.9.77 and 1.10.77. It is fully established from the said resolutions unanimously passed by the Members of the gram-sabha that the petitioner had unlawfully encroached upon the land and he should be dispossessed from the same. It is further established that the land was auctioned on the basis of public notice in favour of respondent No.5. During the course of hearing this court appointed Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma Advocate as Commissioner vide order dated 6.9.94 and the report was filed by the Commissioner on 7.9.94 in this court. From the perusal of the report of the Commissioner, I am of the opinion that factum of possession of the petitioner over the disputed land is not established. In the report of the Commissioner there is mention about accumulation of water, bajri and stones besides cattle tied over the disputed land. The Commissioner who had examined some local persons had refused to sign the report of the Commissioner as witnesses hence no reliance can be placed on the report of the Commissioner since the witnesses who were present at the spot had refused to sign the report and it cannot be inferred that the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the disputed land. (30). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the rival contentions advanced at the Bar I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any protection from this court as he has failed to establish his legal title over the land in dispute which was validly allotted in favour of respondent No.5 by gram-panchayat, Mandawari. I am further of the opinion that the writ petition raises disputed question of fact concerning the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land which cannot be decided by way of the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. From the perusal of the reply filed by the gram-panchayat it is established that the petitioner had submitted an application for allotment of the land for setting up an industry and the Collector after perusing the record had rejected the application for allotment of the land vide order dated 6.7.78. From the perusal of the reply filed by the gram-panchayat it is established that the petitioner had submitted an application for allotment of the land for setting up an industry and the Collector after perusing the record had rejected the application for allotment of the land vide order dated 6.7.78. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority was also rejected by the said authority. I am consequently of the opinion that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 11.11.86 has attained finality since the same had not been assailed earlier either before this court or before any other court and as such the petitioner is estopped from alleging that he was in possession of the disputed land. I am further of the opinion that it is after preparation of the plan by gram panchayat and after issuance of the notices for public auction of the land. The petitioner had encroached upon the said land and the said encroachment was removed by the gram panchayat with the help of the police. The petitioner had submitted an application for revision against the order passed by the gram panchayat which was rejected by the Addl. Collector, Dausa vide order dated 24.3.84. The present writ petition has been filed thereafter challenging the order of Addl. Collector, dated 24.3.84. I am further of the opinion that since the petitioner was a trespasser, he has no right to maintain this writ petition for restoration of his possession particularly when his application for allotment of the land had already been dismissed by the Collector, Jaipur which has been confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority. What the petitioner infact wants id restoration of his unlawful possession over the land in dispute and he has also suppressed the material facts from the notice of this court and hence he is not entitled to get the land allotted on the basis of rules 266 and 267 of the Rules of 1961 which are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. (31). In view of the above observations this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. SHORT NOTE